Judgment :- In all these Writ Petitions the petitioner is a partnership firm. It had the necessary licence to run the match factory issued by the appropriate authority. It was subject to Central Excise duty on all the products manufactured by it. Some partners were added to these firms in some cases and in some others the existing partners retired. In such cases, the Excise authorities were of the view that the reconstituted firm is one different from the licensed firm and therefore they wanted to treat such firms differently for the purpose of levy of excise duty. That was resisted and as the authorities insisted and wanted to treat each of the firm in these Writ Petitions as different from the original firm they (the petitioners) have come up to this court for the issue of a "Writ of Certiorari" to quash the such orders of the appropriate authority who called upon each of the petitioners to pay a higher duty on the foot that new factory has come into existence. 2.These writ petitions have to be allowed. Under a similar circumstances, a Division Bench in S. Arumugasamy Nadar and others v. The Union of India and others (W.P. No. 431, 684 etc. of 1969) of this Court to which I was a party observed : - "When once it is conceded that the alternation which has been effected in the running and administration of the partnership firm related only to its reconstitution which was effected either by retirement or by admission, then the proposition is indisputable that the firm continues in the eye of law and it does not by reason of such a change become a new firm or a firm different from that which existed prior to the reconstitution" * 3.In this view, of law, the challenged order in each of these Writ Petitions is liable to be quashed and accordingly it's quashed, hence these writ petitions are allowed. But there will be no order as to costs.